Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President                   Place : BANDRA

JUDGMENT

The Opposite Party No.1 is a manufacturer of the electronic products.  The Opposite Party No.2 is the service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 – Manufacturing Company.  The Opposite Party No.3 is the dealer of the Opposite Party No.1 – Company.

[2]     It is the case of the Complainant that he purchased a National-Panasonic Video Camera from the Opposite Party No.3 – Dealer; on 14/10/2004 for sum of Rs.34,542/- and obtained a Cash Memo to that effect.  There was a warranty for a period of three years in respect of the said video camera.  The Complainant found that the video camera had a manufacturing defect since it had a week display in LCD view finder.  The Complainant deposited the video camera with the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; on 9/11/2005, but the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; could not repair the same.  Instead, the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; created more faults in the unit.  The system started hanging and ‘DELETE’ function got disabled.  The Complainant has claimed refund of value of video camera from the Opposite Parties with allegations that the Opposite Parties have indulged into unfair trade practice and there deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

[3]     The Opposite Party No.1 – Manufacturing Company; contested the complaint by filing its written version and took stand that the Opposite Party No.3 – Dealer; is not an authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.1 – Company; and the movie camera is not the item sold by the Opposite Party No.1 – Company; in India and as such, the Complainant might have purchased the same from grey market without the warranty of the Opposite Party No.1 – Company.  The Opposite Party No.1 – Company; also alleged that from the warranty card, it appears that the Complainant purchased the camera from M/s. Komal Internationals, Mumbai.  The Opposite Party No.1 – Company; also took stand that the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; had informed the Complainant that the spare-parts of the camera were not available and the Complainant collected the camera from the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre.

[4]     The Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; filed its separate written version and took stand that the camera in question was not sold by the Opposite Party No.1 – Company.  When the camera was brought by the Complainant for repairs, the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; approached the manufacturer – the Opposite Party No.1 Company; but the Opposite Party No.1 – Company; refused the approval of warranty.  Despite that as a gesture of courtesy, the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; prepared an estimate for repairs, but the Complainant was not willing to get the camera repaired at such cost and collected the camera.  Thus, the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; denied the allegations of adoption of unfair trade practice and consequential deficiency in service on its part.

[5]     Inspite of due service of notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party No.3 – Dealer; chose to remain absent and did not file its written version on the record, as called for by this Forum, and therefore, was set ex-parte.

[6]     The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written versions filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  The Complainant also filed his affidavit of evidence and Xerox copies of Cash Memo, Warranty Card and Job Card.  As against this, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 produced on the record a specimen copy of the Warranty Card, issued by the Opposite Party No.1 – Company; to substantiate the allegations that the Warranty Card, as produced on the record by the Complainant, does not pertain to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

[7]     We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents filed by the parties.

[8]     We have heard the parties to the complaint proceeding.

[10]    We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:-

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

[11]    The Complainant has produced on the record Xerox copy of the Cash Memo dtd.14/10/2004, issued by the Opposite Party No.3 – Dealer; which shows that the Complainant purchased a movie camera with accessories for sum of Rs.34,542/-.  On the cash-memo itself, there is a mention of Company Warranty.  Below that there is Xerox copy of the Warranty Card on which, name of ‘Panasonic’ is printed.  It bears the name of the Opposite Party No.3, as the Dealer.  Model Number & Serial Number are mentioned in the Warranty Card, which tally and confirm with the entries in the cash memo.  According to the Opposite Party No.1 – Company; this warranty card was not issued by the Opposite Party No.1 – Company; or its authorized dealer, but it was issued by one M/s. Komal International.  Perhaps, the Opposite Party No.1 – Company; has taken this defence on the basis of address mentioned in the warranty card, below the name – ‘Panasonic’.  It is possible that the office of ‘Panasonic’, at the material time, might be situated at the address mentioned in the warranty card.  In the warranty card, the term – ‘3 Year Warranty’ was clearly mentioned.  Therefore, we hold that the Complainant purchased a Digital Movie Camera of which, warranty was given by the Opposite Party No.1 – Company.  According to the Complainant, there were defects in the Digital Movie Camera and he took the camera to the Opposite Party No.2; which is the authorized service centre of the Opposite Party No.1 – Company.  There is no dispute between the parties to the complaint proceeding as regards the fact that the Complainant had brought his camera to the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; for repairs.  Further, this is supported by copy of the Job Sheet dtd.9/11/2005 in which, the name of the Complainant appears with details of the camera.  According to the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; certain spare-parts were not available, but the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; prepared an estimate.  However, the Complainant was not prepared to pay for the repairs and collected the camera.  In his affidavit of rejoinder, the Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; could not repair the camera, but instead created more fault in the unit and now, the system is getting hanged and ‘DELETE’ function got disabled.  This shows that even the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; could not repair the camera and the camera is lying idle.

[12]    According to the Complainant, the camera was given to the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; for repairs on 9/11/2005, but the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; could not repair the camera and still the camera is in the custody of the Opposite Parties No.2 – Service Centre.  As against this, both, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their respective written versions have taken stand that the camera in question was collected by the Complainant.  The Complainant, in his complaint as well as affidavit of rejoinder, has stated that the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; created more faults and has described those faults.  Without handling the camera, the Complainant would not have come to know about those problems which persist or which have been developed in the camera.  In the affidavit of rejoinder, the Complainant has not specifically stated on an oath that the statements made by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their respective written versions, are false and the camera is still in the custody of the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre.  There is a vague denial in the form of a statement that the Opposite Parties could not repair and returned the camera.  However, there is no positive statement to the effect that the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre; has still retained the custody of the camera.  It also appears unlikely that the camera would be abandoned or left by the Complainant with the Opposite Party No.2 – Service Centre.  Therefore, we hold that the camera in question has come in custody of the Complainant, but it is being unused.

[13]    As pointed out above, the Opposite Parties sold a unit of such defective nature, which could not be used by the Complainant for his occupation.  We, therefore, hold the Opposite Party No.1 – Manufacturing Company; and the Opposite Party No.3 – Dealer; guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice and consequential deficiency in service.  In the background of these facts, we propose to direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 to refund the price of camera to the Complainant.

[14]    The Complainant has also claimed compensation in sum of Rs.25,000/- besides interest @ 9% p.a., on the price of camera.  In the background of the facts of the case, we find that compensation in sum of Rs.5,000/- would be just & adequate and it will meet the ends of justice.  Since, we are inclined to award compensation; we are not inclined to award interest on the principal sum.

          With this we proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed.

The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are jointly & severally directed to pay to the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.34,542/- towards refund of price of the camera and pay compensation in sum of Rs.5,000/-.

The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 shall also pay to the Complainant, costs in sum of Rs.2,000/-.

The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are directed to comply with the foregoing order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which, they shall also be liable to pay to the Complainant interest on the principal amount of Rs.34,542/- @ 9% p.a., from the date of expiry of stipulated period of four weeks till realization of entire amount by the Complainant.

The Complainant shall be entitled to execute this order on returning the Digital Movie Camera to the Opposite Parties.

The complaint, as against the Opposite Party No.2, stands dismissed.

Rest of the claims of the Complainant stands rejected.

Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.